Sociology and the Cinema

Terry Lovell

Downloaded from http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/ at Aston University on January 22, 2014

Sociology I take to be systematic and intersubjectively verifiable know-
ledge of social phenomena — societies, social relations, institutional
structures, role-complexes, etc. Insofar as the cinema is a social phen-
omenon, it is amenable to sociological analysis.
There is some difficulty of reference between " sociology of cinema ' and
'sociology of film'. That this distinction is possible or necessary is in
part an accident of language. In other cases, no distinction is made
between the activity and the product. ' Science ' refers both to the prac-
tice of scientists and to scientific knowledge. ' Art' has a similar dual
connotation. ' Sociology of art' and ' sociology of science ' may concen-
trate on either aspect: ' sociology of knowledge' in its traditional
form, relates the product to social phenomena; modern sociology of
science tends to concentrate on the activity, on what has been concept-
ualized as ' the social system of science '.
Film constitutes what Talcott Parsonsx has termed an ' expressive
symbol system '. That is to say, it is a symbol system in which the expres-
sive orientation is dominant. However just as an emotion must have an
object, so an expressive orientation is an orientation towards something.
Therefore expressive symbol systems must also have cognitive and
evaluative references. They distinguish and relate, and appraise the
objects which they cathect. Film as an expressive symbol system includes
orientations towards
1. itself;
2. states of affairs in the world (realism);
3. possible states of affairs, both desired and feared (fantasy).
The logical possibilities of relating cinema and sociology are wide.
Film/cinema may be related either to sociological knowledge or to social
'15
 phenomena. These are relationships of a different order. Both are of
some importance. If we take the first relationship, it is obvious that
between the two types of symbol system, there is a possibility of an
infinite regression, since each may be object for the other ad infnitum.
I know of no film which takes sociology as its subject. Alison Lurie,
•however, has written just such a novel,2 and no doubt the cinema will
come round to it in time. Secondly, films may, and possibly must, ex-
press ideas about, and attitudes towards, the social world, and these may
be compared and contrasted with sociological knowledge. It is a truism
that many sociological insights have been achieved by creative artists,
and one part of ' sociology of film ' might be to examine films for such
insights. When sociologists analyse single films, it is often from this

Downloaded from http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/ at Aston University on January 22, 2014

point of view. An example is Robertson's analysis of Antonioni's trilogy.3

If the relation in question is between social phenomena and the cinema/

film, then that relation may be conceived as either conceptual or causal,
or both. In either case, this type of sociology of film is macro-sociological,
in that it looks for relations between the film/cinema and the wider
social system within which it occurs. Reflection theories of the cinema
see the world which the cinema creates as a mirror, possibly a distorting
one, of the real world. This relation is conceptual rather than causal.
However, reflection is clearly only a limiting case of the possible types
of conceptual relations. To Claude Levi-Strauss must go the credit for
developing an awareness of the breadth and range of possibilities in-
herent in the situation.4 For on the model of his work on myth and
social structure, we may proceed by breaking down the world of film
and the social world into its elements, and working out the logical
possibilities of variation and relation. For it is his thesis that for any
' collective representation ' some operation may be discovered whereby
it may be seen as a transformation of the social order. The range of
possible operations is very large, including inversion. This perspective
leads to a move away from the simple reflection thesis, to a search for
the actual and possible relations between film and society. A descriptive
morphology of this kind is an 'essential preliminary to any type of
sociology of film.

I do not know of any study which postulates a direct causal relationship

between film and social phenomena in which meaning or at least con-
vention is not an intervening variable. V. Kavolis has made this attempt
in the case of styles of painting, in a series of articles.5 The difficulty of
such a venture is the problem of providing a plausible linking mechan-
ism between the characteristic of the work of art, eg its style, and the
alleged social determinant. For Kavolis, the linking mechanism is
psychological. On the whole this approach does not seem too promising,
not least because of the philosophical difficulties which it raises.
16
Most of the studies which postulate a causal nexus between film and
social phenomena, operate with the concept of influence, a para-causal
concept. But the plausibility of the alleged influence is contingent on
perception of meaning. The model in its simplest form alleges a
modelling of behaviour, for instance, on film experience. But this pre-
supposes an interpretation of the film, and an extrapolation, as it were,
from the film of its relevance for real-life situations. The link between
film and subsequent behaviour is therefore both conceptual and causal.
The conceptual relations limit the possibly causal influences. ' Effects '
studies which proliferated in the 'twenties and 'thirties, culminating in
the Payne Fund Studies,0 are of this type. Social Control theories of film
are also of this kind.

Downloaded from http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/ at Aston University on January 22, 2014

sociology and aesthetics
Since in every case except that of Kavolis, an interpretation of the films
in question is logically prior to any question of influence, the dependence
of sociology on film theory (which I take to be a branch of aesthetics) is
evident. For the task of developing tools and methods of interpretation
and analysis of films belongs in the first instance to film theory. However
the units of analysis traditionally utilized by film theorists may not be
appropriate to the sociologists' needs. Commissions may be as significant
as the dominant themes. For example, on an admittedly cursory reflec-
tion, the achievement motif which commentators have often taken as
the defining characteristic of American culture, appears in curious forms
on the screen. The proverbial ' rags to riches ' theme is rare; a meteoric
rise often signals an equally dramatic and inevitable fall (gangster
genre). In the case of women, social climbing through marriage is
typically denigrated. (Walsh: The Tall Men.) Citizen Kane is perhaps
the paradigm case, yet it stands alone in placing this old theme in its
classical setting. There seems to be a curious reticence in the screen hand-
ling the theme of social mobility, in the so-called ' land of opportunity ',
and as often as not, its dysfunctions rather than its benefits are stressed
("It's lonely at the top! ').
Taken as a whole, the preoccupation of the cinema with interpersonal
relations, especially those of courtship and love, surely requires some
explanation.
I have slipped almost inevitably into the assumption that thematic analy-
sis will be the appropriate tool for sociology. However, I take it that in
fact what is aesthetically significant is not the themes as such, but the
patterning of themes, which depends on relationships between them.
Other types of patterning are also presumably aesthetically significant,
for example the formal structure of films. Sociology of film is logically
dependent on aesthetics if it is to be sociology of film, in its primary
'17
aesthetic aspects, since it is film aesthetics and not sociology which defines
the aesthetic response. The task of analysis of the aesthetic significance
of film is necessary if sociology of film is to be anything other than
peripheral. The poverty of sociology of film merely reflects the inade-
quacies of film theory.
•Despite this, sociology of film has a degree of independence also, in so
far as it is interested in tracing influences as well as isomorphisms be-
tween patterns in films, and the patterning of the social order. For the
sociologist, interest will be in the films under that description under
which they were influential, rather than the more specialist interpreta-
tion. Film theory is not necessarily restricted to an account of the audi-

Downloaded from http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/ at Aston University on January 22, 2014

ence response. Like linguistics and like philosophy of science, it has an
ineliminable normative component as well as a descriptive one. The film
theorist may, over time, change the audience perception of film. Sociolo-
gists may create more sophisticated audiences. But at any given point of
time, the sociologically relevant description is unlikely to overlap entirely
with that of the specialist film-theorist. This point may be illustrated by
reference to Max Weber's ' Protestant Ethic' thesis.7 He has often been
taken to task for the fact that his interpretations of the consequences of
Calvinism were not the logical consequences of that doctrine, taken
literally, but were based on popularizations, on sermons'and tracts,
analysed in order to extract their probable psychological consequences
for the typical believer.8 Theologians would undoubtedly object to some
of these interpretations, with as much and as little justification as the
film theorists objection to the interpretation offered by sociologists. To
repeat, in so far as the sociologist is interested in influence, he has a
degree of autonomy from the film theorist: yet only a small degree,
since that influence is mediated by meaning (in the widest sense of that
term). And clearly the more subtle the sociologist's understanding of
the films, the more aware will he be of the range of possibilities for
the influence of films.

micro-sociology of film/cinema
If studies which attempt to relate film to the wider social context, in
whatever manner, are macro-sociological, then studies which concentrate
on the internal relations and development of film/cinema from a socio-
logical point of view, may be termed micro-sociological. There are two
main traditions here. The first is exemplified by Ian Jarvie's recent book,9
in those parts where he describes the institutional structure of the cinema,
and uses his method of situational logic to trace out the implications of
various role-positions within that structure. The second centres on the
concept of movement, and tries to account for either structural or cultural
changes, or both. Huaco's study10 is an example of this approach. The
18
first is particularly appropriate where a given art form has a determinate
and differentiated organizational structure; in short, to the extent that it
is institutionalized. Of all the arts, traditional and popular, film seems to
fit these conditions most nearly. It is the social art par excellence, and is a
fit subject for this kind of institutional/structural analysis, on the model
perhaps of sociology of science.

film movements
The concept of movement is taken from the socio-political universe of
discourse. It is related to other concepts, such as revolution, and change.
It might be useful to look at these in their original context, to see

Downloaded from http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/ at Aston University on January 22, 2014

whether sociological accounts of such phenomena may be borrowed, and
applied in this area.
A socio-political movement is either aimed at preventing, or inducing
social change. ' Movement' is an intentional concept, implying collective
action towards some conscious goal. A. F. C. Wallace's " definition of
' revitalization movement' is pertinent: ' a deliberate and self-conscious
attempt to provide a more satisfying culture'.
By contrast, ' revolution ' stresses achievement rather than irite'ntionality.
A cluster of changes in the social structure can only be characterized as
a revolution after the event. There are, strictly speaking, no failed revo-
lutions, although there are many failed movements. A revolution may
only be said to have failed in terms of some analysis of the revolutionary
potential of some situation, which was not exploited. It is rarely the
case that revolutionary change coincided with the aims and interests of
any single social movement. Where this is so, it is simply a limiting
case, rather than the norm. A revolution often, perhaps usually, is the
outcome of many movements which may be heterogeneous and even
opposed in their aims and interests. The French Revolution, the para-
digm case for all theorists of revolution, is a case in point.12 Neverthe-
less, it is not merely an umbrella concept, since each of the movements
may arise from the same cause, and ultimately, will be analysed in terms
of their contribution to the final outcome; to the breaking up of the old
order, and the forging of the new. Such a phenomenon is unitary, when
its several elements arise from the same circumstances, and jointly lead
to some definite and radical change, whether that outcome was intended
or not.

the nouvelle vague — a case study in sociology of film

movements
I would like to suggest that the so-called ' French New Wave' may
usefully be analysed within these terms of reference.
19
 The term ' new wave' was a convenient journalistic label, probably
originating from I'Express, used as acknowledgement that the French
cinema was undergoing rapid change on several fronts, rather than to
refer to any well-defined, unitary phenomenon. During the period from
roughly 1958-1961, a large number of young directors made their first
• feature film. Between 1958-60, the number was over 100. As-Jacques
Siclier " remarked, nothing like it had ever happened before in France,
or elsewhere. This represents between one-quarter and one-third of the
total number of films, including both French, and co-productions, in that
period. Clearly something very unusual was happening.
Only part of the ' New Wave' can be called a movement, however,

Downloaded from http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/ at Aston University on January 22, 2014

namely the nucleus of Cahiers critics turned directors — Godard,
Truffaut, Chabrol, Rivette, Rohmer, and Doniol-Valcroze. Other identi-
fiable groupings include the Left-Bank group of Resnais, Marker, and
Varda, and that of Malle, Demy, and Vadim. Considered individually, .
these directors are each very different, especially when their later devel-
opment is taken into consideration. Nonetheless the New Wave heralded
recognizable innovations of style and theme, which I shall attempt briefly
to sketch.14
The lack of any social dimension is characteristic of the typical New
Wave film. Its heroes are neither personally nor socially integrated, and
are dissociated from their social roles. Indeed it is not always possible to
identify those roles. They are marginal men, disaffected intellectuals,
students, and in one case (The Sign of the Lion), a rather high-class
tramp. Interest centres purely on immediate face-to-face relations. They
have no apparent family ties, on the whole, no political affiliations.
Action is engaged in for its own sake, and this is often arbitrary and
motiveless. There are no social antecedents of action, only emotional and
volitional. There are no points of articulation between the individual
and society. Nor are these anomic lives placed in any broader setting.
The milieu of the individual exhausts the films' compass.
The subjective and objective worlds are fused, also those of reality
and fantasy. The epistemology dominant in the West since Descartes,
with its egocentrism, and the dominant values of individualism and
liberty, are here reduced to absurdity. Egotization of the world reaches
the point of solipsism, where the ego submerges, and is in turn sub-
merged in, the objective world. The interiority of the subject is lost. The
world is paradoxically depersonalized. Resnais and Godard are twin
poles of this phenomenon.
All this stands in marked contrast to the naive realism of the French
cinema of the "forties and-'fifties. Stylistic and technical innovations are
equally marked. Perhaps more in the commitment to experiment and
innovation, rather than in any specific set of innovations.
20
This thumb-nail sketch obviously would not fit exactly the work of any-
single director of the period. It over-simplifies, and it is also reductive.
It is intended to mark a break, rather than to adequately characterize the
emergent set of interests and ways of looking at the world.
I shall adapt Smelser's theory of collective behaviour,15 for the purpose
of analysis of the generation of the New Wave. Smelser uses the logic of
value-added for his theory. Each stage in the process ' adds its value ' to
the final outcome. At each stage, the range of possibilities of outcome is
narrowed. His set of determinants are as follows: structural conducive-
ness, structural strain, growth and spread of a generalized belief, (in
terms of which the situation is redefined), precipitating factor, mobiliza-

Downloaded from http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/ at Aston University on January 22, 2014

tion of participants for action, and finally, social control. This analysis
will inevitably be simplified, as it would be necessary to distinguish the
various groups of participants in the New Wave. Here, I shall concen-
trate on the directors involved. However, within the framework of
analysis chosen, the phenomenon is as much defined by the behaviour
of the financiers and producers who sponsored the films, as by the film-
makers themselves. Any full-scale analysis would have to be allied with
the first ' micro-sociological' approach identified above as institutional/
structural analysis, there may be relevant changes at many points in the
system, and different parts of the system will be differentially affected
by any changes which do take place.

1. Structural Conduciveness
It is a truism that no movement, political or cultural, will get off the
ground unless the contextual circumstances are favourable. I shall ex-
amine some aspects of the structure of the French industry at the time,
although this will not be comprehensive or complete.
(i) Production and Finance
The French cinema is structured horizontally along functional lines, in
contrast to the American, which contains major vertical cleavages, at
least this is true of the heyday of the Studio system. The French cinema
was and is highly segmented. Such a structure is likely to be relatively
conservative in its choice and promotion of films. But on the other hand
it lacks a power structure in which any systematic discriminations could
be made. Innovatory films may find some outlet. The system itself has
high survival value, since there are no monolithic structures whose fall
would have ramifications throughout the industry.
The French industry is small and marginal. It has suffered endemically
from lack of capital, a small turnover, and underinvestment. It is mar-
ginal both because of its small size, in relation to other industries, and
in its lack of integration with the industrial sector. This characteristic
21
partly stems from the nature of film itself. It has a product which cannot
be standardized. Each production is a prototype. Financial success is in
principle uncertain and unpredictable. Yet large sums must be committed
in advance. There is no possibility of a trial and error approach, in which
a limited risk is taken. But large profits may be made with a single out-
standing success. The film is hired and not sold, therefore its dissemin-
ation costs little more in the case of success than of failure. In sum, the
norm of economic rationality could hardly flourish here. The ethos of
change, and luck, rather than the calculated risk, is paramount. Holly-
wood abounds in quasi-magical practices to ensure success. The Weberian
' spirit of capitalism', frugal, careful, and conservative, is less in evi-

Downloaded from http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/ at Aston University on January 22, 2014

dence than a more primitive spirit of adventure capitalism.
The risk taken is unevenly distributed among the various participants.
The producer takes no personal risk, as he is guaranteed a 7 per cent
return, regardless of the fortunes of the film. Foreign producers, dis-
tributors, and the State, in that order, bear the largest share of the cost,
although the risk again varies.
French film production is an occasional and sporadic activity. In any
year, only about one-fifth of the number of registered production com-
panies are active. The majority produce only one film. ' Th'e producer
makes a film in the manner in which one mounts a hold-up. Each one
is different from the last, each time he must seek collaborators and
creditors.'1G
The average cost of film-making rose from 0.60 million francs in 1956,
to 2.97 in 1966. But at the time of the New Wave, costs were still
relatively low.
(ii) Distribution
Distributors play a key role in the French industry. A few large com-
panies dominate the market, and receive a large share of total revenue.
It is a more highly capitalized sector than production. It is increasingly
important as a source offilmfinance.
(iii) Exhibition
There are no large circuits. The overall ratio of exhibitors to houses is
almost one to one. This sector has been severely hit by the crisis.
(iv) State
The Centre Nationale du Cinematographic (CNC) controls everything
to do with finance and receipts of films. It grants authorizations to make
films, issues professional cards of identity, gives advances and subsidies,
and organizes professional and technical training. The amount of con-
trol and intervention is greater than in any other non-socialist State.
22
(v) Audience
The common conception of film is of an essentially popular art, with a
mass, heterogeneous audience. The composition of the French audience
seems to have changed in recent years. It is on average, more highly
educated than the British or American, and of different social com-
position. Regular cinema-goers are drawn more from professionals and
intellectuals, and the middle classes, than is the case in Anglo-Saxon
countries. It may be that in this respect, France merely leads a general
trend. Chevalier and Billard point out that this fact accords with the
growing recognition of the cinema in other arts, especially literature,
where since about mid-century, cinematic references are as frequent as

Downloaded from http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/ at Aston University on January 22, 2014

were theatre and theatre-going references previously. There is evidence
of growing cultural integration of film. Here, too, France surely is ahead
of other countries.
In sum, the French film industry contains no monolithic giants to domin-
ate and shape it. But its very segmentary nature militates against any
high degree of voluntary innovativeness. It may respond to outside
pressure of events, but is not highly self-directed. Incentives to innovat-
iveness are few. The cinema in general unites two opposing tendencies
— the search for novelty and the search for a formula. It involves a high
degree of risk for innovation, but an equally high reward when success-
ful (eg Warner Brothers and sound). Its product is not divisible, and
therefore it is difficult to experiment.17 The failure of an innovation may
mean extinction, especially to the small producer. The French industry is
composed almost entirely of small producers. On the other hand it does
not penalize its innovators where it may not actually promote them.
France has a tradition of the privately financed, single venture, and such
films played a key role in the French New Wave. There is a greater
possibility of distribution and exhibition of such films in a segmentary
structure than there is in the circuit system.
2. Structural Strain
The history of the French cinema Is a history of crisis. After the war, the
Blum-Byrnes agreement resulted in a flood of American films with dis-
astrous effect on the war-damaged indigenous industry. The 1949 Tem-
porary Aid Law was ameliorative, but the situation was still critical.
Many well-established directors were unable to work, or did so at a
much reduced rate. Clair, Autant-Lara, Becker, Duvivier, and Carne,
each had directed only one film during 1946-49.
In a word, the opportunity structure for creative artists in the cinema was
very poor. This situation was exacerbated, from the point of view of
new entrants, by the policy of large subjects, well-known actors and
directors, and adaptations of works of literature. It was extremely diffi-
23
cult for a new director to get launched. In addition, union rules were
formidable, although these seem to have been loosely enforced.
The crisis in the cinema traditionally and misleadingly attributed to TV,
occurred late in France, and can be dated almost precisely at 1957. From
that date the falling off of audiences was dramatic. At the same time,
' quality' films began to wane in popularity. The old well-tried formulae
were failing. A new definition and restructuring of the situation was
needed. The precipitating factor was the success of Vadim's And
Woman was Created. . . . Today it is hard to recreate its seeming
novelty. The point is not so much what it contains, as how its success
was ' read ', and along what lines it was generalized as a ' formula ' for

Downloaded from http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/ at Aston University on January 22, 2014

the future.
3 and 4. Generalized Belief and Mobilization
The young critics and would-be directors of Cahiers du Cinema had
presented precisely a redefinition of the cinema, in terms of which the
dominant ' quality' films were attacked — the Bost-Aurenche adapta-
tions, and films of such men as Carne, Clouzot, etc. A ready-made re-
orientation in terms of the at/teur principle, and a different set of cine-
matic values existed, and the Cahiers group were therefore particularly
well-placed to benefit from the search for novelty. The ' lines of general-
ization ' seized upon were youth, the use of unknown directors and
actors, and a disregard of all tradition, and for a short period these were
almost prerequisites for a new director.
5. Social Control
This residual category concerns the response to a movement, unlike the
others, and the conditions for its success rather than its generation. The
structural factors considered were permissive of the New Wave only on
condition that it ' produced the goods '. Conditions at its height, where
many new directors made a single film, and where many failed to com-
plete projects, could not last. In the event, the New Wave produced a
fierce reaction. It was readily extinguished, leaving behind a handful of
directors who had managed to establish themselves.
Achievements
The French New Wave, especially in its critical moment, gave the
French cinema a new paternity. It instituted a new cinematic cinema,
whose heroes were directors such as Renoir, Rossellini, Leenhardt, etc.
Above all, it integrated the American cinema into its cultural heritage,
for American directors featured widely in its pantheon. This represented
the coming of age of the cinema, when it could insist on the value of its
own past, and refuse to rely for legitimation on borrowings from the
established arts, especially literature and theatre. Like political inde-
24
pendence movements, this coming of age had a certain nativistic element.
In its insistence on its own autonomy, however, it paves the way for a
more truly fruitful synthesis with other forms.
The French New Wave revitalized the French cinema, and upgraded it
as an autonomous art form. Its repercussions are being felt throughout
the cinematic world, both in influence on ' the look ' of films, and more
importantly, in its initiation of a critical/theoretical debate. For although
Cahiers made no very great contribution to critical theory, except in the
person of Andre Bazin, nevertheless its critical judgements remain a
fixed point of reference for the subsequent debate.

Downloaded from http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/ at Aston University on January 22, 2014

It failed, at a more parochial level, to change the structure of the French
film industry. Controls were, if anything, tighter as a result, than they
were before. Initial capital requirements, for instance, for making a film
were raised out of all proportion to increased costs. Union requirements
were tightened. The net result on this front was merely that a genera-
tion of film-makers were enabled to force their way into a moribund
industry. They have not, in the process, made the task any easier for
future generations. Perhaps it was too much to expect them to do. For
to institutionalize creativity is not impossible, as the social organization
of science demonstrates. However, in such a necessarily highjy capital-
ized art form as the cinema, it is surely maximally difficult.
REFERENCES
1. T. Parsons, The Social System, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952.
2. A. Lurie, Imaginary Friends, Heinemann, 1967.
3. R. Roberston, ' A Sociological Approach to the Cinema', Scope, Vol 5,
No 10, 1964.
4. eg his Structural Anthropology.
5. eg ' Expressionism and Puritanism', Journal of Aesthetics and Criticism,
21, 1962-3; 'Economic Conditions and Art Styles', JAAC 22, 1964; 'Econ-
omic Correlates of Artistic Creativity, American Journal of Sociology,
1964-65; ' The value-Orientation Theory of Artistic Styles ', Anthropological
Quarterly, 1965.
6. R. C. Peterson and L. L. Thurstone, Motion Pictures and the Social Attitudes
of Children, Macmillan, 1933; H.'Blumer, Movies and Conduct,Macmillan,
1933; P. M. Hauser, Movies, Delinquency and Crime, Macmillan, 1933.
7. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism, Allen &
Unwin, 1967.
8. See E. Gellner's discussion of this point in ' Concepts and Society, Proceed-
ings of the 5th World Congress of Sociology', reprinted in A. Maclntyre
and D. Emmet, Sociological Theory and Philosophical Analysis, Macmillan,
1970.
9. I. Jarvie, Towards a Sociology of the Cinema, Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1970.
10. G. Huaco, The Sociology of Film Art, Basic Books, 1965.
11. A. F. C. Wallace, 'Revitalization Movements', Anthropological Quarterly,
reprinted in N . Smelser, Sociology: The Progress of a Decade, Prentice-
Hall, 1968.

25
12. For a discussion of the various currents within the French Revolution, see
G. Lefebvre, The Coming of the French Revolution, Vintage Books, 1947.
13. Jacques Sktier,Sight and Sound 29, No 3, 1961.
14. Much of the material on the French cinema is drawn from L. Chevalier and
P. Billard, Cinema et Civilization, Universite de Paris, 196S.
Other sources:
. French Embassy Press and Information Service.
The French Cinema (undated).
Esprit, Issue on French' cinema, June I960.
R. Armes, The French Cinema Since 1946, Int Film Guides, Zwemmer, 1970.
P. Graham, The New Wave, Cinema One series, Seeker and Warburg, 1968.
Centre Nationale de la Cinematographie bulletins.
On the French intellectual scene:

Downloaded from http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/ at Aston University on January 22, 2014

Z. Barbu, Choisisme, European Journal of Sociology, 1963.
M. Crozier, The Cultural Revolution, Daedelus, 1964.
15. N . Smelser, The Theory of Collective Behaviour, Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1962.
16. Chevalier et Billard, op cit.
17. For a systematic account of factors promoting or inhibiting innovativeness,
see E. Rogers, The Diffusion of Innovations, Collier-Macmillan, 1962.

Studio Vista
new cinema titles
Expanded Cinema
by Gene Youngblood
with an introduction by R Buckminster Fuller
A far-ranging examination of the new fields - including
computer and laser films, multiple projection, and
videotape cassettes - into which the cinema is moving.
460 pages, 100 illustrations, 12 in colour, £3.75

Movie Paperbacks
'The Apartment' and 'The Fortune Cookie':
Two screenplays by Billy Wilder and I A L Diamond
90p paperback, £1.75 hardbound
Rossellini
by Jose LuisGuamer
70p paperback, £1.40 hardbound
Allan Dvyan:
the last pioneer
interviewed by Peter Bogdanovich
90p paperback, £1.75 hardbound
Available at your local bookshop

26